rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (07/17/86)
In article <969@utastro.UUCP> bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) writes: > >> Some techniques which show great promise (though I think that >> they are still in need of some maturing) seem to get statistically >> significant results with only a few dozen trials. We'll have >> to see how they work out. > >We shall see. If such techniques show paranormal effects in >anyone's hands, it might be interesting. Are you saying any researcher or any subject. If a researcher finds several subjects with high latent PK ability (or whatever might influence) the results may be different for different subjects. Note: The influencing factor might not be PK at all, but something as simple as GSR or conductivity. But at least "high scorers can be investigated for such factors". >> There are two ways that "detectors become more sensitive". One >> way is that they introduce less noise themselves. > >You are right, of course, but this is beside the point. Reducing the >"noise" inherent in psi experiments is precisely what I am talking >about. > >No one in their right mind would set up an experiment by deliberately >injecting noise into their experiment that is a hundred times the >size of the expected signal, >Yet ever since Rhine, >that is the basic paradigm that parapsychologists have been using. > >Not to denegrate Rhine. His idea of using statistical processing to >study psi was for its time a revolutionary one. But here it is >fifty years later, and parapsychologists using these techniques >still can't convince other scientists that paranormal effects are >real. Statistics are useful in marketing and politics. Very seldom are they convincing arguements themselves. >Heck, they can't even convince some parapsychologists (e.g., >Susan Blackmore). Could you give some references of works by Susan Blackmore? >For example, why study PK by rolling dice (to give a simple example)? >If a psychic can really exert enough force on the dice to affect the >roll in a nonrandom way, surely he or she can exert enough psychic force >on a sensitive torsion balance to move it measurably! THIS IS THE BEST SUGGESTION YET! Interestingly enough, there are several such experiments, to test both transmission (PK), and reception (ESP). The number of subjects able to do this are very small, 1 per 5000 tested. However, study of those subjects has led to subsequent research that makes results easier to achieve. Portable EEG machines on dowsers, infared and ultraviolet video cameras on "light benders and torsion bar benders" are also done. Most of this research is done by biophysical researchers studying neurological factors. Just plain old vanilla science. :-). >Or consider experiments based on Schmidt's ideas. Instead of trying to >pull signal out of noise generated by quantum processes, why not see if >the psychic can directly affect one of the very sensitive quantum >detectors that have been developed? A SQUID comes to mind as a possible >basis for such an experiment. Again, a very valid request. Again, the sensitivity may not be sufficient for just *anyone* to do it, but for the few who can, there is at least something to study. >> The attitude of parapsychologists is that there is an unknown >> source of systematic biases. No known source of such biases, >> or combination of sources fit its characteristics very well. >> Maybe someday we'll identify a subtle effect arising from >> known processes, maybe not. But it is anti-scientific to >> simply assume the effect arises from known causes or >> to require full understanding *before* any effort be put >> into investigating it. > >As long as one simply says "there are unexplained biases", that's >fine. It is when the words, "...and those biases are evidence of >paranormal phenomena" are added that I, and most scientists, part >company with parapsychologists. There might be something "abnormal". It may or may not be "supernatural". >> Bill Jefferys seems to agree that there are systematic biases. >> He offers no explanation for them, but simply dismisses them >> as, essentially, too small to worry about. > >> Too me, that isn't an attitude which is likely to advance >> scientific understanding very much. > >I think this is a distortion of my position. In many cases >in the past we know what the biases were (unconscious "cueing", >or outright cheating, e.g., Soal). To their credit, many >parapsychologists have made a real effort to tighten their >controls. But how can we be sure that their efforts have been >adequate? The question is not whether or not there are biases, >but whether they are "interesting" or not. Actually, what makes many of these experiments "interesting" is the discovery of the biases. Especially "subconscious" factors. There is something very interesting about the way a "high subconscious IQ" interfaces with the conscious. I have a friend who can flip the pages of a book, read one word from the top line, and go to the next page. After he has finished "flipping" the book, he closes his eyes and "reads" the book. It seems to be different from "speed reading" in that he is able to answer test questions and even provide quotes from the book. This is a "concious to sub-concious link". He also has the ability to "read minds", which he admits is simply the ability to interpret body language, facial expressions, and voice tones at a subconcious level. Another "paranormal ability" may also be a sub-concious to concious link. In this case, the subconcious is even more "intellegent". Of course, I'm talking about pre-cognition. In this case, an individual can cram his head with seemingly unrelated information from radio, television, newspapers, books, magazines, or anywhere else, and "predict the future". In effect, what he is "seeing" is the equivilant of a car coming down the road. This is the same ability we use when trying to turn left on a moderately busy street. If we see a car coming toward us, it is possible to know not "in how many seconds will it arrive", but "can I go now, or should I wait". If the car turns without signalling however, we may have waited needlessly. This is the same thing that throws "psychics" predictions off base. A psychic can observe body language, voicing, phrasing, dialect, and get a good "feeling" about how the person feels about himself, his boss, co-workers, situation, plans and fears. When the person asks "should I do such-and-such" the psychic can "see the car coming". In effect, a "psychic" is doing subconciously in a few minutes what theripist would do in weeks. What is "paranormal" is that it is the subconcious that is "intelligent". In fact, at the concious level, there isn't even an awareness of what's happening. In fact, when a psychic can't predict for him/herself it is usually because the "intellect" gets in the way, trying to support the "impression". There is an interesting thing that happens on an EEG when the "High IQ SC" takes the "front seat". Specifically, high peaks which resemble epileptic seizures. >To get my interest, you will have to come up with something that >(a) is replicable, >(b) has a large enough signal that one can >be certain that it is real, and not an artifact. Unfortunately, this is not "paranormal" in the sense of PSI but it is a simple method of stimulating "High IQ SC". Simply flash pictures and/or words for 1/60 to 1/20 of a second 1/2 to 1 second apart. Monitor EEG as pictures are flashed. Then mix some previous pictures with new pictures. The secret is to swamp the concious so much that the subconcious has to take over. EEG "peaks" should occur when a picture is repeated. If this occurs with a "psychic", then weight any "paranormal cognition" activity accordingly. When the psychic does a "reading", especially by phone, does she "peak", "trance", or "think"? For definition sake, define "trance" as the effect of a strobe light just after the EEG goes "out of synch" with the strobe, usually around 40-60 Hz. Televisions tend to cause this state as well. >If someone >like Susan Blackmore says that an alleged paranormal phenomenon >is worth looking at, then I would have to agree. (I have to use >someone like her as a proxy, since I don't have time to waste in >studying this subject closely. I have enough trouble keeping up >in my own field.) I mentioned a "light bender" earlier. The "trick" is actually worth study. The bender rocks back and forth about 3 feet from the beam and hyperventilates as she rocks. The beam will be deflected somewhat simply from the heat of her breath, and the motion of her body. When she stops breathing, holds her breath, and slows her rocking, the deflection is actually wider than before. In the experiment shown, the laser beam is approxamately 2 meters long. The deflection is only around 1 mm. It took several hours of attempts to get each "hit". What is interesting is the effect of this hyperventalation on some people. The EEG peaks right off the meter. UV or IR photography (I don't remember which) indicates a "field" around the area. Other "imaging technology" may also indicate more about this "field". Perhaps some astronomy student might have access to such equipment. Remember, some of this "field" is normal. What is to be investigated is the growth or shrinkage effected by hyperventalation (as deep in and out as possible 1 second inhale, 1 second exhale). Do these sound like interesting experiments? Do they *prove* psi? No, what they do offer though is some insights into "additional forces" that may be affecting PSI experiments. Oh, as long as you have your imaging equipment out, Try taking some pictures of a "black card" in various different areas. Especially areas such as "cold spots". Also try a "white card".